On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, Ben Laurie wrote:
If it were possible, it would indeed raise the bar. The problem is, it
would seem, that it is not possible to have a provably strong means of
copy protection, publicly known or otherwise. The SDMI charter can say
what it wants, but that doesn't mean
Roop Mukherjee wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marc Branchaud wrote:
This analogy doesn't quite hold.
Copy protection need only be broken once for the protection to be disabled
for a particular piece of work. Also, once the scheme is known for one piece
of work, it is extremely easy
Marc Branchaud wrote:
This analogy doesn't quite hold.
Copy protection need only be broken once for the protection to be disabled
for a particular piece of work. Also, once the scheme is known for one piece
of work, it is extremely easy to break the scheme for other pieces, and in
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Marc Branchaud wrote:
This analogy doesn't quite hold.
Copy protection need only be broken once for the protection to be disabled
for a particular piece of work. Also, once the scheme is known for one piece
of work, it is extremely easy to break the scheme for other
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 10:24:55AM -0400, Roop Mukherjee wrote:
The analogy was intended towards publicy know provably strong means
of copy protection.
But no such schemes exist, and as I was arguing earlier, I don't think
they will be found either because there are fundamental problems with
This analogy doesn't quite hold.
Copy protection need only be broken once for the protection to be disabled
for a particular piece of work. Also, once the scheme is known for one piece
of work, it is extremely easy to break the scheme for other pieces, and in
particular to write an application
At 2:23 AM -0700 10/17/01, Ben Laurie wrote:
The thing that gets me about all this is that exactly the same argument
can be made for all existing media - and, although piracy is rife,
no-one is attempting to mark videotapes or CDs, AFAIK. So why all the
fuss about more modern digital media? Has
